W E SAMBABDAM Vs. W E SATHYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI W. E. Sambandam, has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment dated 31-3-2000 passed in O. S. No. 8386/1980 on the file of the 30th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The facts as narrated in the appeal memo are as under : respondent-plaintiff W. E. Sathyanarayanan has filed a partition suit in O. S. No. 8386/80 against he appellant-defendant praying for the judgment and decree for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs share in the suit schedule properties by metes and for mesne profits. In the suit, the respondent-plaintiff claimed a share in the suit property on the ground that he is a member of the family of late sri. W. Ekambaram, he is entitled for a share in the property. Defendant-appellant entered appearance through Counsel and filed a written statement and additional written statement. Apart form denying the right sought for by the plaintiff, defendant also took a contention that the plaintiff was adopted by his uncle and as such the plaintiff lost his right in the original family. A further ground of a will by late Ekambaram was also raised by the defendant-appellant. Learned Trial Judge framed several issues for his consideration. Witnesses were examined. Several documents were filed by the parties in respect of their respective contentions. After hearing the learned trial Judge has chosen to pass the following order;

(2.) RECORDS were summoned and records were pursued. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the proceedings, three IAs were filed. From the order we see that those applications were taken up by the learned judge before passing orders on merits. IA. No. 91 is with regard to consideration of IA No. 92 - filed under Order 16, Rule 6, requesting the court to summon the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar to produce the document dated 16-3-1977. IA. No. 94 is an application filed for correction of errors. Learned Judge after noticing the material on record has chosen to hold against the defendant with specific ground in para 16 and 17 of the order in question. No serious arguments are placed before us with regard to these las. The reasons given by the learned Judge in the present circumstance do not call for any interference by us. In fact, the learned Judge has given a correct finding in so far as these applications are concerned.